Because if you waste your referrals on non-howlers you don't deserve to use them for their correct purpose.

This.

Really, if you accept that the DRS as it is is there to overturn "howlers" then Clarke's thought process before reviewing an LBW should have been:

1) Did I hit the cover off it
2) Did it hit me a foot outside off
3) Did it pitch a foot outside leg
4) Did it hit me on the thigh when i was halfway down the pitch

If the answer to all the above is no the Clarke's conclusion should have been "Accept the decision, it's too close to call and we might need the review for a genuine howler later in the innings" as opposed to "What would Watto do..."

The decision-making process changes when you're one of the side's guns, though. Mitch Johnson referring a 'non-howler' is a different thing to Clarke doing it. On this occasion it cost Warner and that sucks but it's rare and I think it was worth the risk.

All this obfuscates that both Pistol and Erasmus missed some big edges on their watch, though.

The decision-making process changes when you're one of the side's guns, though. Mitch Johnson referring a 'non-howler' is a different thing to Clarke doing it. On this occasion it cost Warner and that sucks but it's rare and I think it was worth the risk.

All this obfuscates that both Pistol and Erasmus missed some big edges on their watch, though.

Don't disagree with you tactically... But once again it comes back to what you want the system to achieve. And more importantly people not having a **** at the system when it isn't used correctly.

I suspect we're a some way from having a system everyone is happy with (even ignoring the BCCI) but I think the risk/reward/flow of the game balance is about right as it is.

Having said that I'm fairly ambivalent as to whether or not to increase the reviews to 2 in ODI's and 3 in Tests.

Erasmus' mistake was horrible... Pistol's less so, looked out in real time tbh.

it is a fault in the system that it allows fallible players in the heat of the moment to make a poor decision

Only be an issue if you're using it as a tactical tool... If the team has decided to use it for howlers only then shouldn't cause a problem. If OTOH the team has agreed to use it tactically (ie 50/50 for a gun player) then the side needs to accept that, like any other tactical move, it may not pay off, so again don't **** if you lose the review and need it later on for a genuine howler.

I'm assuming here that players will stick to the team plan rather than risk a bollocking for wasting a review..

The system as it is without a doubt increases the number of correct decisions made. It's up to the teams themselves how effective it is. If you perceive that to be a fault in the system, then yeah, you're right, but what's the alternative? If you take away UDRS completely then you're essentially saying you're happy with fewer correct decisions being made.

If your argument against the UDRS is that it saps the enjoyment out of the game by disrupting the flow of play that's fair enough, but honestly 2mins of a replay in an entire innings means **** all when compared to a potential match deciding decision being overturned. Poor umpiring calls, that's what saps the enjoyment out of a game more than most things for me personally.

It's not ideal that it's in the hands of the players, but currently that's the best option we've got. The day players don't need to be involved in the DRS is the day we won't need umpires anymore so it's a long way off tstl.